The political victimology of Zizou
Ed:
I think Materazzi probably deserved it…With any luck, Materazzi will be disciplined for racist abuse by FIFA.
If – and it’s a very big if – I had been him and Materazzi had said to me anything like any of the remarks attributed to him, I think I would have done the same and maybe more.
Materazzi called Zidane a “terrorist”, presumably in some disgusting reference to his Algerian descent…Materazzi would be guilty of an offence in this country: racially aggravated disorderly conduct, on the basis of abuse of someone because of their nationality
Piara Powar, national co-ordinator for the anti-racism group Kick It Out:
If there was a racial slur then Fifa needs to act.
I’m sure there are plenty more. You might put this down to footie partisanship. We love Zizou. He’s the peerless footballer of his generation, the greatest since Maradona. Materazzi was a` pantomime clown (and occasionally violent) during his time at Everton. But something more interesting is going on here. Materazzi is being convicted of racism on the basis of the following:
1. Conflicting lip-reader accounts of what he said. He may have called Zizou a “dirty terrorist” or the “son of a terrorist whore”. Or perhaps he just “wished an ugly death on [Zidane] and [his] family”. Or maybe called Zidane’s sister a prostitute. We’re not sure.
2. No knowledge at all about the other half of the conversation. Zidane’s back was turned to the camera.
3. When Zidane releases a statement tonight, the word of someone who assaulted Materazzi in front of one bilion witnesses. Someone who already has form for violent retaliation, justified by an uncorroborated charge of a racist slur (vs. Saudi Arabia, 1998). This is purely cirucumstantial, but if all we have is circumstantial evidence on both sides, then it has to be weighed all the same.
None of this is enough, surely. The trite response would be the favourite of the Right: the Left aren’t to be trusted on civil liberties, in this instance the right to the presumption of innocence, without prejudice (all those “if-and-it’s-a-big-if’s” won’t do). Further, (some among) the Left’s curious obsession with race (to the exclusion of all else) makes them ill-placed to dish out neutral justice, without which there is no justice at all.
In fact I think it’s a little worse. The presumption that Zizou was justified in “retaliation” can only be explained by assuming Materazzi fits the northern European stereotype of the Italian as a racist wop. To those that charge Materazzi with racially abusing Zidane, on the basis of so little evidence, I call right back at you.
UPDATE: And on it goes. So far, this episode has told us little about Zidane (he’s human, he lost it, he’s handy, behind the shyness he’s moderately arrogant), nothing about Materazzi, and far too much about the pundits who have chosen to view this incident distorted by their own petty prisms.
